Re: Apple accused of underreporting suspected CSAM on its platforms

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

badgolferman wrote on Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:13:38 -0000 (UTC) :
 

Everyone on this planet should have a right to basic privacy.

 
I agree with anyone who makes a logically sensible assessment of fact.
 
I fully agree with Jolly Roger (and I disagree with badgolferman).
 
We should never have to defend our right to privacy.
 

 
The object of my disagreement is not CSAM, it's the idea that everyone has
the right to privacy. Prisoners, murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.
do not deserve even basic privacy. Many of them are let off scot free for
stupid technicalities while the families are left with no justice. Many of
these people have a long history of harming others and should have been
under surveillance or even locked up long before they hurt another person.

 
It's an interesting adult question of who deserves the right to privacy.
 
I'm sure in some fundamentalist countries, gay peop...

It's interesting that you decided to choose (male) homosexuality as your
exemplar.

Something that has been oppressed and vilified by the church for centuries
primarily because of the distaste (fetishisation even) for the sexual act -
sodomy like you mention - for no good reason.

Curiously lesbianism was rarely so targeted and was often just accepted, if
not mentioned.

Like you say it is purely an opinion and choice which the state has no
right to have a say when it involves consenting adults in a private place
with no harm being done.

You're, maybe unconsciously, making an equivalence here between
homosexuality and child sexual abuse because like many the focus is on the
sex rather than the abuse. Homosexuality is now legal so maybe CSAM is just
an opinion, right?

Wrong. Children can never consent to the abuse and are very vulnerable so
need additional protections by the adults in the room. There is no way we
should allow this to happen when we have ways to stop it in a healthy
society. Impacting on someone's theoretical privacy - which is unproven -
is a reasonable balance.

The point of who has "rights" is up to the society that they live in.

Correct. No person's rights are more important then another's. Your right
to freedom doesn't overrule someone's right to life.

While I need not say I'm no lawyer, it's my understanding that, here, in
the USA, we are *all* presumed innocent until proven guilty - right?

In theory in the US. Not always in practice.

And, we have in our Constitution the fundamental right to not be subject to
unreasonable search & seizure, right? Nor should our property be detained.

Key word here is "unreasonable". All your examples have clearly been
unreasonable so very simplistic to defend.

We all know that the law allows for people's rights to be suspended even
constitutional ones. Companies have an obligation to uphold the law.

Bearing in mind that for all we know, exactly ZERO people may have been
convicted after all those Google, Meta (and yes, Apple) reports, the
article is clearly bullshit meant to be an unwarranted attack on Apple.
 
For now, I'm going to assume, for lack of data, that exactly zero people
were convicted - which means Google, Meta, and yes, Apple, broke the law.

Which law, exactly?

Apple just does it far less than Google & Meta did.
Without the conviction rate - we have no business lambasting Apple.

Right. So where are your multitude of posts attacking google on the android
forum?